Earth Aliens On
Resources for those who are stranded here
Our Bookstore is OPEN
Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced!
Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New
Search... for keyword(s)  

Location: Mothership -> Ufo -> Updates -> 1998 -> Oct -> Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking

UFO UpDates Mailing List

Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking

Please also see: Re: Failure of the 'Science' of Obergian Debunking - Cohen

and "Some Very Important Issues"

The immediate above contains solid research which rebuts
The failure of the 'science' of ufology, by James Oberg

- - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Ed Stewart <>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 23:53:03 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:42:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking

>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <>
>From: Jerome Clark <>
>Subject: Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking
>Date: Fri, 16 Oct 98 15:41:15 PDT

>>Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:21:18 -0700
>>From: Ed Stewart <>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <>
>>Subject: Re: Failure Of The 'Science' Of Obergian Debunking

>>After hearing the best ufology from the best ufologists, these
>>are some of the conclusions of the Sturrock panel. From the
>>Summary Report of the Scientific Review Panel:

>>      "On the other hand, the review panel was not convinced that
>>any of the evidence involved currently unknown physical
>>processes or pointed to the involvement of an extraterrestrial

>Of course that was not the panel's intention. It was making
>judgments from the limited number of cases it looked at. It
>found those cases impressive and worthy of further scientific
>inquiry, at the end of which - presumably a long process - it
>would be possible to come to a far more firm judgment about
>the nature and origin of UFO phenomena.

The above is a pure fabrication by Jerome Clark. We all know
where the report is online. The quotes come from the part of the
report directly attributed to the Scientific Review Panel, not
Peter Sturrock's rendition. The viewpoints of the Scientific
Review Panel are the only ones relevant of consideration, not
the paid home team announcer's.

>But haven't we gone through this before?

Yes we have. It is known as intellectual dishonesty on your
part. Give a specific chapter and quote to support your
allegation that the review panel was impressed with the cases
and they were worthy of further study? You can't quote the
scientific review panel because they said just the opposite.
Section 14 was written and credited to Peter Sturrock. He is not
a member of the review panel. All the sections up to 13 were
written by Sturrock and his team which includes partials
attributed to the review panel and those parts in essence
reflect the summaries they are credited as writers of - exactly
the section I quoted from online - the only part of the entire
report that is directly credited to the scientific review panel
and not Peter Sturrock or his team.

>Or are we to be subjected to yet more special pleading - and
>quotations out of sense or context - from would-be debunkers.
>The Ed Stewarts of the world, alas, seem only to want to
>snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Those who want a
>more honest and realistic picture of the panel than Stewart
>provides ought to go to the SSE website and read the whole

Absolutely, but the only part that is independent is the Review
Panel's conclusions, not Peter Sturrock's who was hired by LR to
organize the whole thing, irrespective of Jerome Clark's
interpretation of what the Sturrock Panel is alleged to

>Meantime, the rest of us can scratch our heads at
>the strange things Ed wants us to believe: that a report
>attacked, sometimes virulently, by skeptics and debunkers
>is a report that validates the skeptic/debunker position.

There is no virulent attack. There is simple quoting exact
conclusions from the review panel. Nothing else is needed, not
Jerome Clark's pitch, or Peter Sturrock's pitch in attempt to
salvage an otherwise weak, disappointing and pathetic showing.
The review panel confirmed what I have been arguing online, what
Oberg said over twenty years ago. It is that simple. Read the
scientific review panel conclusions and stop making up things
that the scientific review panel has never said.

>Ed's reading of the Sturrock panel is bizarre, but much of what
>we hear from this man, as we have seen, answers to that

It is apparent that you have no respect for accuracy in quoting
and attribution. My quoting of the Scientific Review Panel must
have been seen as bizarre to you since it does not reflect your
intellectual dishonesty which you use to color just about
everything you write on this subject. Read the scientific review
panel comments and weep. You can't change them. And you can't
attribute Peter Sturrock's attempt to salvage a dismal review by
the scientific panel to the scientific panel members.

Ed Stewart
Ed Stewart

|So Man, who here seems principal alone, There Is Something         
|Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.  Going On!       ,>'?'<, 
|Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal,   Salvador Freixedo  
|'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.

                                         Alexander Pope, Essay on Man 

                   ( O O )      

Page from the website of:

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
[ This Month's Index | UFO UpDates Main Index | MUFON Ontario ]

UFO UpDates - Toronto -
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304

A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.

[ UFO Topics | People | Ufomind What's New | Ufomind Top Level ]

To find this message again in the future...
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page.

Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not responsible for content.
Software by Glenn Campbell. Technical contact:

Financial support for this web server is provided by the Research Center Catalog.